you sound VERY mentally stable. you can be sure you won't be one of those who gets killed
@iOoko You are right, I'm confident I'd survive unless a criminal gets me. I played with guns, they are fun but dangerous. I respect guns and people.
No idea why you named yourself "lightbulb." I'd say that bulb is a bit burned out.
Im just running extra hot...
I see you're still unable to learn and use facts and instead make stuff up that's all been proven false numerous times, and you wonder why everyone laughs at you?
I've had firearms for years & get irritated on a regular basis, I've yet to put a couple holes in my neighbors. Also "heroes", as in armed citizens have saved a lot of lives.
@purplepoppy "your far more likely to blow your neighbor away in heat of the moment over jack shit than your likely to need it for real"That is bullshit. Anybody who shoots their neighbor for no reason shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Conceal/open carry is necessary for the crazies out there willing to do ludicrous things such as shoot their neighbors.
Good grief Poppy...Here you go. Educate yourself.www.amazon.com/.../ref=tmm_pap_title_0www.amazon.com/.../ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
What guys?She's right!
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I didn't know how many knife murders or acid attacks in the UK, so I looked it up. 235 murders and 601 respectively from June 2018 to June 2019. In the same period the United States had almost 16,000 gun homicides. I'm assuming you made me look up those numbers, because they're a pretty weak counterargument. I do like your argument that 'more safety' isn't necessarily good, as the world is an inherently dangerous place, so I'll let that one stand.Your third paragraph is undercut by the fact that highest rates of gun deaths per capita are actually in very low-population, RURAL states: Alaska, Montana, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri/Mississippi (tied) in that order from most to least.Your fourth paragraph is undercut by the fact that illicitly used guns and legally-owned guns come from the same sources. Sometimes legally-owned guns find their way into criminals hands. It is far more common for a gun to be stolen than to be used in self-defense. I think a lot of liberals DID get bent out of shape about that operation (Fast and Furious, I believe was the name). Your meme you posted, is just not accurate in any way.I'm fine with guns to be honest, but what I'm not okay with is bullshit arguments, and you've just used a few of them here.
@WhistleForTheChoir the issue with those numbers is that they include justifiable homicide by civilians against attackers, police shooting assailants, we have a population more than 3 times the population of the UK so a purely numerical comparison like that is unfair to begin with, and nearly 76% of all homicides in the US take place in the following cities: Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC, one thing all of those cities have in common is very strict gun control that leaves unarmed civilians disarmed against criminals who obviously won't follow laws because they're, well, criminals. In the UK, people are prosecuted for acting in self defense, here we have stand your ground laws and better access to guns which give the advantage to the victim, whereas you give the advantage to the attacker. I know you'll try to bring up police, but here's the reality, the best response time is 5:00, plus they'll hear you calling and know exactly where you're hiding and they have all the time in the world to do whatever they want to you and your family. It's also estimated that between 500,000-3,000,000 innocent lives are saved through the defensive use of firearms in the United States, compared to just 6,000 homicides with those conflated numbers removed and reduced down to actual homicides.
Furthermore, rifles are used in less than 2.1% of all homicides, so your idea that the AR-15 is used to kill everyone everywhere is complete utter nonsense, politicians go after it because it allows civilians to be about on par with what they'd use on civilians in terms of small arms, which makes trying to oppress and kill civilians a bad idea for them, and that's the purpose of the second amendment, to keep the government in check, it has nothing to do with hunting. As for mass shootings, which by the way only accounted for 296 deaths at it's worst year, when armed civilians step in, only 20% the amount of casualties take place compared to if they'd just waited for police who it saddens me to say are the first ones to run away when someone opens fire most of the time.
@Rangers So I'll start with the 500,000-3,000,000 number, because I've seen the number 500,000-3,000,000 before. The problem is that it's fake, and put out by the NRA and Heritage Foundation to be gobbled up by gullible idiots, and you're even misinterpreting the fake version, because it's not "lives saved" it's "crimes prevented", which is different. At the higher range there aren't even that many ATTEMPTED gun crimes in the United States, and if it were true that 2.5 million Americans had their lives saved by a gun EVERY YEAR, then more than 7/10 Americans would have a story about being saved by a gun. And somehow I've never met a single one. You should actually read the study that it comes from. I've brought it for you here: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15 It shows that the figure you just cited is extrapolated based on a statistically insignificant amount of phone interviews. There is another, more scientific study that puts the number at 108,000, but even that one didn't specifically ask about "defensive gun use", but rather "justified gun use", so it also doesn't support your argument.
@Rangers You're right, the UK actually has about 1/5th of our population. So let's multiply 850, I'll be generous, by 5 and that is 4,200... still well below the 16,000 gun homicides, or even the 6,000 figure that you just pulled out of your ass (if ruled a 'homicide', it's not ruled as 'justified'. Homicide is a crime.) Not to count all the suicides and accidental deaths. According to the CDC about 60% of gun crimes occur in the top 50 biggest metro areas, not just four cities. 62.7% of U. S. citizens live in metro areas, so actually, gun violence is slightly more common per capita in rural areas, particular in states with high poverty rates. It turns out Manson-Family-style home invasions are pretty rare, so I'm not worried about someone sneaking into my house to murder me in the middle of the night while the police can't come. If that does happen, it happens, but it's far more common to be killed by a gun, even accidentally, especially if you have one in your house. Um... what other misleading information do you have? Oh, I'm from Detroit, Detroit does not have strict gun control laws, I don't know where you heard that. Michigan in general doesn't, we have more militias than any other state. And I'm not even going to go through your second message, because that would take forever.
Suicides are undeniably a mental health issue, not a gun issue, that's why they aren't included. And you're wrong, there is such a thing as justifiable homicide, stand your ground laws exist in many places so you're not required to try to run away if someone is trying to attack you, you can fight back immediately, which gives an advantage to the victim instead of the attacker. I've seen those nonsensical articles many times, they have no facts, just conjecture. Even if you were right in your 100,000 figure, which you're way off on, the numbers would still prove that guns save far more innocent lives than they take. Accidental gun deaths even in their worst year are in the single digits, and they happen through the owners fault, as long as you aren't making jokes about suicide when you're drunk and pointing the gun at yourself while it's loaded and pulling the trigger, they're extremely safe. I can tell you watch Vox, so NRA showing numbers that came directly from the FBI is fake but completely made up and misrepresented numbers coming from a gay latino communist is valid? And to look only at gun related homicides and compare to other countries is dishonest as hell, we have over 300,000,000 guns in the country, so yeah more people would die from them than countries that don't have any, but overall homicides remain comparable and are actually far lower in places where they're more accessible to the average civilian because no criminal wants to rob an armed civilian because then they'll get shot.
@Rangers A justifiable homicide is a thing, but then it's not legally ruled as a "homicide", so it wouldn't figure into the 16,000 number. I found an article published in a criminal justice journal. I want you to find your article where you're getting your numbers... realizing there is a 75% chance of you saying, "I'm not going to do your research for you (because you don't have any)". Once again, the 108,000 figure does not count lives saved, but "justified uses of a gun", which is pretty vague, and it's based on a survey, not FBI data (the FBI has no data on this by the way, I checked. The CDC does, but not the FBI), meaning there is a high probability of error.You said single-digits which means you honestly believe there are less than 10 accidental gun deaths every year? Because that's a whole other level of denial. (The actual figure is a little under a 1000).Okay, you have no idea where I get my information, except for the one article I sent you, which you already told me you didn't read, you just know what's in it. Suffice to say it's a little more rigorous than VOX, and I'm definitely not enough of a dumb-ass to trust information from a gun lobbyist group about guns.And there you have it... You just made my point for me: "we have over 300,000,000 guns in the country, so yeah more people would die from them than countries that don't have any". The rest of what you said afterwards is bull-shit, and you don't have any reliable stats to back that up. Countries with higher murder rates tend to have more guns and a very lawless environment. So, thank you very much.
Not every picture you find on the internet is true. Note that in your picture countries like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan are all almost homicide free, when that's just not the fact in reality. Your data has probably been fabricated. You're going to have to source it.
When specifically did we make guns less accessible? Like what law was passed that did that?You can't actually kill 50 people at a concert with a guitar. That's because guns were invented to kill things, so they're really good at it. Do you realize how absurd you sound?
@WhistleForTheChoir well for one thing in many states you need a firearms purchers ID. As well as carry permits which in many states are next to impossible to get.Many states also make you apply each time you want to buy or transfer ownership of a weapon which requires a background check to be completed for each weapon and takes time. It takes a while to stop anyone from getting a gun who feels they have an immediate need for one.Guns have been part of our culture since the beginning. It's really only very recently that they've gained such a negative stigma. And as we look for reasons for that we ask "what's changed" guns didn't become worse, it's their presentation that changed, people don't know that much about them, they aren't seen so often anymore so their scarier to the average person.The guitar anology was to illustrate the mechanism by which this happens by exaggerating it to an extreme but you're so stuck in your ideology, so hell bent on only seeing things your way that you either didn't recognize it or refused to acknowledge it.If you want a different example that includes lots of people dieing there's a really good case of that happening when a terrorist commited vehicular manslaughter by driving through a crowd. Happened a couple times, those death tolls were about the same as most shootings.I get that their scary to you but people use them because there's nothing that goes against a gun easily that most people carry with them. Most of these guys get into it knowing full well that nobody's gonna shoot back.
On a broader perspective, maybe legalize some of the things that are causing a thriving underground economy. In the US, from what I understand, there are ~1.5 million active gang members and over 30,000 gangs in circulation. Their primary source of profit includes drug trafficking, arms trafficking, prostitution, and gambling, If these things are legalized and regulated, then perhaps gradually the underground economy could subside with safer streets and reduced gang violence, and perhaps rehab over prison for the consumers.
You’re not wrong but I would like to add that poverty in general breeds crime. Black men happen to be a major part of it but anyone can be corrupted by poverty. Those corrupted by poverty are the ones who shouldn’t reproduce until they get their act together which is definitely easier said than done.
A few rounds of ammo at once? Your gun won't be much use to you if you only practice with a few rounds per shopping trip and then you're out of ammo. Why do people who know nothing about firearms insist on having such staunch opinions about them? And why should I only have the right to defend myself on my property, when threats can present themselves in the woods and on the streets? If a policeman needs a gun for what's out there, why don't I?
@TienShenhan If someone is going out with the intention of shooting you they are always going to shoot you first. Police are trained to use guns properly and only a very small number of shootings are stopped by a civilian with a gun. It is not a coincidence that areas with more guns have a higher level of death related shootings and suicide.
I live in Montana. There is an experienced shooter behind every blade of grass here. I trust myself over a cop any day, because he or she is 7 minutes away and I'm here right now. What crime takes 7 minutes to commit? The average rape takes 4 minutes from start to finish. Your defense plan of relying on more experienced men and women is garbage, sorry. You're just unrealistic and naive and probably useless in a crisis
Don't waste your time, this guy is a criminal who's butthurt because he can't rob anyone without getting shot at in response😂
Why would racial segregation be a solution for gun violence?
@Barry88 Alone it wouldn't you would need to be sure the ethnic state did not include criminals, nihilists and the like. But, it would certainly reduce race hate to near nothing and remove all racial violence. Also, only a homogeneous society with high mutual agreement has a chance at being peaceful.
So to reduce crime, your idea is to get rid of criminals... and create an ethnic state. Couldn't you just get rid of the criminals, which is equally unrealistic? Sounds like you got something to sell here, man.Also, why are you under the impression that other white people would homogeneously agree with you?
@WhistleForTheChoir Other white people would not homogeneously agree with me but other white nationalists would sure come close enough to make it work. The way to get rid of criminals is to Incentivize sterilization. Time off prison sentences, interest free loans for low IQ types to buy the frivolous shit they like such as tricked out cars etc. Who cares if the pay them back as long as they get sterilized. Of course you need the ethnic state otherwise you'll get racism and continual social unrest no matter how much you preach against it to people.
So, out of curiosity, where would this ethno-state specifically for High IQ White Nationalists be? Also, could I hypothetically, have 10 kids, and then still get a free vasectomy AND an interest free loan when I wanted to buy a tricked out car?
@WhistleForTheChoir Where to put such a thing is a problem. I've discussed just sailing off together on boats. Since their aren't that many white nationalists living like gypsies on the sea makes sense for a start. We could get into finance , banking and the like. We would learn the financial game and be in a position to lend money. When the world devolves to third world low trust status and factions start fighting we could provide money , food, weapons to which ever factions that can offer us the best deal for some land. Once they're desperate enough, they'll kick everyone off it and build us a wall even if it means getting the guns, food and medical supplies they need. Slowly but surely we can advance and establish ourselves as the civic nationalist world rots out from the inside. It is a failed ideology and it's days are numbered.
I, for one, think this idea is flawless. All white nationalists should sail out into the middle of the ocean and start their own country. I am 100% behind that plan.
@WhistleForTheChoir As I predicted you wold be and reassured my fellow white nationalists. Once we leave we'll be written off by our enemies as doomed to failure and thus left alone to live as we please. If we fail we're gone. If we succeed , by the time our enemies find out it will be too late.
It's big brain time(I ain't kidding those are very wise words)
Well we both love to lick clit but I hate your plan for my guns
quite a few countries you say?
I know of at least one and I believe there are 2 more at least... don't quote me on that but I'll do a bit 9f digging when I get off work
That emoji was not meant to be there; I have no idea why this site/app inserts emojis in the place of certain character combinations, but it's very annoying!
Socialist countries have much much higher poverty rates. Capitalism has lifted the most people out of extreme poverty.
Social democracy and state capitalism are systems that don't qualify as socialism; there are currently no true socialist/Marxist states in existence. Socialism has to be worldwide in order to be properly implemented, and workers must own/control the means of production. You can (erroneously) call countries like China and Denmark "socialist," but capitalist countries (on average) tend to have much higher rates of poverty than those incorrect examples; Somalia is a great example of what extreme capitalism does to wreck economies and cause poverty. Even if you choose to call nationalistic (and very un-socialist) countries like Cuba and Venezuela "socialist," they're (even with the economic terrorism of sanctions) doing far better than most capitalist nations. Capitalism lifts no one out of poverty, but it definitely allows bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements in society to steal the fruits of labor they didn't perform. I'm not trying to call you "ignorant," but I feel compelled to counter such arguments in favor of a system (capitalism) that is the #1 problem in the world.
Let me ask you something, who represents the community as a whole?
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.The government represents the community as a whole which means in order for socialism to exist the those who represent the people aka the government needs to seize the means of production distribution and exchange. Where do you see that? China, and DPRK. Look at the poverty levels of those countries. And then look at a country with a mixed economy like the US and Canada.
Represents? No one.. This is a complicated paradox, since no one individual (or individual group) can represent the community as a whole, while at the same time, every worker does.
You're not going to get me to use China as an example of socialism/communism; China is, in fact, very capitalist; not only has China NEVER been a socialist/communist state, they continue to have neoliberal reforms and austerity measures. Socialism is a label that's been hijacked (even redefined) by everyone from social democrats to state capitalists; I don't agree with right-libertarians, but I don't call them "conservatives," since I know they aren't the same thing. As a Trotskyist, I'm rarely given that kind of respect by anti-communists, who continue to use people like Stalin (who had Trotsky assassinated!) to discredit what I believe.
A country doesn't become more socialistic by creating a bigger welfare state; this is one of the biggest misconceptions that proponents of capitalism have. True socialism is a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means that the working class (and peasants to a lesser extent) is the revolutionary class that holds all the power. In the USA, we have a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," which means that non-workers are in control of what's created by the labor of workers. I hope that helps clarify what I'm saying here.
How about we go with a hypothetical country than. I'm assuming you're advocating for a currency free society correct me if I'm wrong.
Because of scarcity who chooses who can't have something if there isn't enough.
I would have to use a hypothetical group of countries. In Trotskyism, the ideal model would be a world where all major countries (starting with western countries) would have a shared socialist economy. In terms of currency, I see that as something which would exist until the VERY END; the idea of a "stateless world" is something that is utopian, but it's so far into the future and "down the line" in human development that I don't even give it much thought as it pertains to the overall worldwide "permanent revolution." The currency debate tends to be more something collectivist anarchists and anrcho-communists debate, as it's the #1 thing that separates the two schools of thought; of course it's not the only thing, as they differ a bit on what constitutes "the state."
You're speaking of wealth redistribution in the way capitalists do, which marries it to the welfare state. Once workers are in control, wealth is distributed among its creators (as it's produced); it's not about deciding who gets another labor-producing humans wealth. Only labor produces wealth.
So basically the manufacturer keeps the product for himself is that it?
What prevents someone from hoarding for example the cure to a disease because he made it.
No, the distribution infrastructure/equipment/facility (means of production) all belong to workers, and as a result, whatever wealth is created from the product belongs to the workers; the product is for consumers.
So basically every factory has every employee as the owners. And they're still charging a fee for the products. This just sounds like a poorly run business within a capitalist economy and society.
Hoarding of things like vaccinations (or other essentials) is prevented by the fact that workers need what they produce as well; hoarding of things like that only happens because a small group of people place themselves above the needs of the population. You see it all the time; this COVID-19 crisis has "disaster capitalism" all around it. Ironically, this is one of those situations that show how much of a capitalist nation China is; a group of lobbyists threw their money at the Chinese GOV, endangering workers and the entire world by allowing a specific type of "wet market" that should never exist. While it's been disproven that a particular Chinese wet market "created" COVID-19, it's been proven that it DEFINITELY was the #1 factor in the disease spreading across China, which of course, caused it to spread all around the world.
If someone is the only person who knows how to produce it they can hoard it for themselves under that model because they produced it so it's theirs to own and keep
There's more to it than that, but we were speaking on the source of poverty, so I went to that. It's not a single business model, but I can see where I didn't provide enough detail in my responses. If you want more information on socialism, I'd be happy to drop you some links. If anything, you'd end up understanding the opposition argument a little better. You seem to have a thirst for knowledge, which is more than I can say for most people I've talked politics with online.
I'd be glad to see some links
But I'd also encourage you to do research on capitalist markets encourage sharing new inventions to others.
That would go against the collectivized nature of socialism itself; it's not about becoming wealthy as individuals. Since workers own everything, Company B, who wants to keep the cure for a deadly disease out of the hands of Company C, doesn't exist. Add to that, there's no competition between governments in the the complete form of socialism (permanent revolution). Progress always move forward, society strengthens; capitalism always drains the population of wealth and resources -- then the next move is warring on other nations to bleed "foreign" populations dry of whatever they have. We've entered late capitalism, and as long it continues this way, the global bourgeoisie will keep launching wars. When was the last time the USA wasn't at war?
I don't know about the US but canadahasnt been in a proper war sence WWII only peace keeping missions for the UN
It says I haven't levelled up enough to post links on here yet, so I highly encourage you to take a look at the World Socialist Web Site. They're the media wing of the Socialist Equality Party, a group of Trotskyist parties all around the world. They have newsletters for workers in various fields, and they're quite active (and unfortunately, often censored) on FB and Twitter. I don't consider myself a representative of any party, as they have people who do that, and I'm a pretty independent thinker -- but my views correspond with somewhere around 85-90% of what the SEP advocates.
Canada's government is still contributing to war; that government literally sells weapons to Saudi Arabia. War-for-profit is not just the USA, but I use the USA so much when talking about such things because it's the most extreme example.
@Codywow no poor Countries had to use socialism to survive. Especially Countries who's markets were intentionally destroyed by Soros and the Rothschild family. This family would love to know you're online parroting the good word. "Socialism is bad." You are well trained
@TienShenhan you don't even know what I advocate for. @ComradeCarabao and I had a discussion on the two systems in which I ask about his stance and get clarification on his ideas. If you were paying attention I was about to do some research to further satisfy my curiosity. You're litterally attacking someone who was trying to get a genuine understanding.
@TienShenhan To be fair, the guy wasn't being disrespectful; he even expressed interest in learning about socialism.
@Codywow I do know what you advocate, it's capitalism, while you repeat what we've all heard a thousand times to shun socialism. I'm not even putting words in your mouth. "Socialist Countries have much higher poverty rates. Capitalism has lifted the most people out of poverty." I'm not attacking you, I'm calling out your argument as flawed and certainly adopted from other misguided people. Why do you feel compelled to speak out against socialism? Have you identified the reason?
@TienShenhan I advocate for a mixed economy telling me what you think I believe based on one statement of fact (and it is fact especially if the number of socialist countries is 0) is misguided on your part and if socialism is such a good system how come every country that even tries it turns into an oligarchy and collapses before actually gets to the system on a national level.
@Codywow what makes you think every Country that tries it fails? Oh wait, I think I know the answer because I've heard those regurgitations a thousand times before. In America, democratically elected officials use our taxed income to create programs that provide jobs, unemployment funding, healthcare, and retirement for it's members. This is how our bloated military has more money than any other military in the world, and is a proven socialist model. There are other socialist models at work in this Country as well, the military is just the obvious one people should be aware of.
@TienShenhan you're seriously using military as a good example for how day-to-day life should be? A system that is entirely based on hierarchy and dicipline
@Codywow im using it as an example of how well socialism generates wealth. I am no fan of our militaries actions. On the surface, it is supposed to function like socialism, but in the shadows a Corporation like ex CEO Dick Cheney's Haliburton will have control of it's actions and reap the profits, while the American workers are the first ones charged and the last ones considered. This could all be avoided within our current system by voting in more honorable, transparent representatives, and putting term limits on Congress for the same reasons we have term limits for Presidents.
@TienShenhan your military buys weapons from private companies (as most do) and doesn't support its veterans.
@Codywow No one is trying to say that the military is controlled by honorable people, so I'm not sure why you keep going back to that. The point is that the officials in charge were elected democratically (save for corrupt string pulling) so technically any corruption can be blamed on the American people as a whole for A: voting with poor judgement and B: not revolting against obvious corruption.
Don't exactly know what open carry is but for the/your plan to work you would have to loosen up a decent amount of restrictions. And I would bet every third person of the population can be made angry enough to use it. Use the Murphy's law and you would have far more 'criminals' than existed before...
@sensible27 murphy's law is not an actual law
@sensible27 people have fists, people have knives, how often do they use those? Don't get stupid with me. There would be approximately the same amount of criminals as there are now IF NOT FAR LESS
Run the numbers yet or are you just saying that because you 'think' it will. Yeah people do have knives but it's about encouragement. In today's society going out with a knife is not really appreciated... It's not binary that if people can have knifes they will have knifes. Just go on the internet see the level of irrationality, do you want those people to have a gun so if you are 'offend' them enough they can just shoot you down.. In my opinions promoting guns among common people is an overkill. If you think couple of thousand people dying is such a bad thing lobby/promote more security personal among public facility such as planes schools and airports with trained professionals. I would feel far more threatened in a world where every next dumbfu*k has a gun than knowing couple thousand people die everywhere because some of those went to the extreme corners of their minds, kept it to themselves enough and for long enough to make a plan, qualify for or acquire a gun and then just shoot some people... When you say everyone I am taking a number like 3/10 and that just doesn't sit right, practically the outcome wouldn't be what you expect.
I won't go into the numbers because it's easy to just deny the assumptions behind it so they become redundant and I don't care enough to do more explaining. I know Murphy's law is not a law, I was typing with one hand (non dominant hand) so I just couldn't bother to write the whole darn thing...
@sensible27 buddy ur just trapped in ur way of thinking, u completely ignored what I said. Good daye
That wouldn't work, since murder is already against the law and yet it is still happening. And there always those people who feel an obligation to break the law.
Well, I don't know how to stop gun, knife, baseball bat, drunk driver, hammer, blunt object, and violence with fists without the law against murder.
So this argument that someone who is set on killing, is going to kill no matter what doesn't fly with me. If that were true, then the concept of "Second-Degree Murder" wouldn't be a thing. Most murderers are actually not premeditators, they're very much doing it in the moment.
Hence my answer
I worded the middle portion poorly, what I meant to say was "do you think making guns illegal will stop the 1% of people who commit gun violence."
Then again you could also say take 100 people and give them all a gun, in a non war environment, and see how many are less likely to use said gun due to the fact they know everyone else is carrying one as well.
Sarcasm? This already exists
Literally the only thing that helps bulled kids is them standing up for themselves and hitting the bully but for the past couple decades they don't fight instead they grab a gun because they are mentally ill. This is why the simple answer is to have armed guards and snipers at schools. If anyone brings a gun in the school and is s threat they can take the threat out quick. Problem solved.
You call those acts "terrorism", and believe it or not they're not that common, because there are actually limits and regulations in place as to who can drive a semi-truck or a plane or buy a shit ton of fertilizer, which seems to prevent those crimes for the most part. I don't know, maybe we should try something similar with guns, like only letting people who have licenses, and strict registration policies, and only give them to people with special training. You know, like we would with a car. Just an idea, so Stevey Social-disorder can't go to a gun-show on a sunny afternoon, and then drive back to his high school to show everyone else what's up. And you wanna know why there weren't school shootings in 1804? Because a musket gives you a little bit of time to calm the fuck down. A modern gun doesn't. So this argument that someone who is set on killing, is going to kill no matter what doesn't fly with me. If that were true, then the concept of "Second-Degree Murder" wouldn't be a thing.
@WhistleForTheChoir Licenses and registration unequivocally leads to gun confiscation and endless wait times. Making it harder for civilians to own guns while criminals have them only creates more soft targets. I will cut you some slack, you've been force fed a lot of propaganda, seeing as how you're living in Europe, most likely, but at least put a little bit of effort into thinking critically about this and doing your due research.
@Rangers Just like requiring a drivers' license makes it take longer to get a car?
@WhistleForTheChoir We can't defend ourselves against criminals and a government with cars, and we've seen many times states deliberately not completing registrations and withholding licenses for no good reason or explanation. You have to wait at least 6 months just to get a tax stamp for a shotgun or rifle with a barrel shorter than 16" in length and pay $200 plus have a dealer hang on to it until the paperwork comes back, the same goes for suppressors and other NFA items like select fire guns.
@Rangers No, but that's not really my point. My point was that to use a car, you still need an operator's license and a registration, and it doesn't seem to prevent most people from having them, but when a car is used in a crime, it's generally pretty easy to source it to someone. Also, just to save you some heart-ache when you do turn your guns on the government, you're not fighting off a drone with a bush-master either, you'd have about the same odds trying to pillow-fight it away.
The Brits said the same thing in the 1770s, we said the same thing in the Vietnam war, we said the same thing about Afghanistan, yet the owners of the land won all of those conflicts. I will never give up my right to keep and bear arms, I will defend the constitution with my life. I will not allow fascist communists like you destroy this country.
@WhistleForTheChoir Sometimes you do. It depends on the context, because terrorism by definition has to have a political goal in mind. If someone ran a crowd down with a truck just for the sake of running down people with a truck, it wouldn't be terrorism. Same with the pilot who intentionally crashed his airliner to commit suicide along with several hundred other souls on board. He wasn't making a political statement. Just killing himself in a very, very terrible way, so it wasn't terrorism. What do you call that? Crash violence? Violence is violence and murder is murder regardless of the tool chosen to execute it with. And you don't need a license to operate a car. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of unlicensed drivers on the road. Only the lawful obtain licenses and if you were had the mind to use the car to commit a crime anyways, why bother getting a license?
@Rangers Okay, so Vietnam and Afghanistan are probably not great examples to support your thesis. Those countries were smoking craters after we left. We didn't "win", but that's because we didn't really have "goals" in mind. But the Afghan and Vietnamese people definitely lost. Big time.And I actually don't want your guns. Honestly, I think with certain restriction people should have access to more varieties of guns, even the types that would generally only be used in military engagements. I think the best argument for guns isn't that society wouldn't be safer without them, because it would be, that's just true. Or that you would achieve anything more than a Pyrrhic Victory if you took on the U. S. government. I think the best argument is, "We shouldn't always make laws just because it makes people safer, because the world is an inherently dangerous place." I do think licenses and registrations are good ideas.What I don't like, are people who like guns, because y'all are just a bunch of disingenuous idiots with an arsenal of bull-shit arguments. Every argument you guys come up with that isn't, "I like guns, don't take them away," is you trying to twist facts and words around and muddle up what is true, causing confusion, especially within yourselves, and that is more dangerous than any fucking weapon. That by the way, is how authoritarian regimes (like Fascists and Communists, which are opposites, by the way, meaning someone can't possibly be both. In fact, the former ideology was created specifically to oppose the latter) rise to power: mass confusion brought on by propagandists like yourself (i. e. the type that doesn't know they are spewing propaganda.)
If they're unable to access their gun when an intruder comes in, that eliminates the purpose of having it in the first place, plus that makes it super easy to frame the owner for a crime
So true. This is what my mom said when I asked her what she thought.
Everything begins in small numbers.
When you get to the end, what is to say the beginning won't fall back into old ways?
Weapon restrictions are already in place. Try again?
You regulate guns and it won't stop nothing. I saw a guy make a mac-11 out of garage door parts. There is too much knowledge available now. Regulating them further or making them illegal will just cause people to go elsewhere for them like to an MC or the hood
@Ratmuffin they do that already
So how can it be regulated? Its a waste of effort
@Ratmuffin why do anything?
@Ratmuffin I would like to add that even if the government was successful allowing only police and military to carry guns and everyone else is illegal - that won't stop criminals from having guns. They have the know-how on how to make them or get them.
@David92506 my point exactly. The idea is to keep everyone honest. Just like putting a lock in your door. It keeps good people from doing bad. But criminals will always find a way to go around that.
Bro thats exactly what i f***ing said. R u downs or something?